My good friend created an award-winning tech and media Flipboard magazine. Yesterday, it included a link to an article from Wired about a father and daughter who drove their Tesla S across the country. My friend, in teasing the link, added just a few words. Those words, I'd say, are very important. Here is the title, and then the title with my friend's addition:
First Cross-Country Tesla Trip Takes Less Than A Week, Costs $0
First Cross-Country Tesla Trip Takes Less Than A Week, Costs $0 [well $0 for the drivers at least]
That bit in the brackets is so important because it highlights the common belief that we can have/use things at no cost. The Wired article says that the father and daughter used Tesla's charging stations (which must not charge a fee for usage). The drivers, then, did not incur any monetary costs for charging their vehicle. The usage of the charging stations most certainly incurred a cost, though. The charging station is made of a number of materials. Labor and equipment were required for construction and installation. Each charge requires electricity. There is no way to harness and conduct electricity without using resources. The point is that a driver may not have to pay when they charge their car, but this does not mean that charging a car is free of cost.
My guess is that many people would not think to add "well $0 for the drivers at least" in their head as they read the title. The reason I feel safe making this guess is that I often hear statements along the lines of "Healthcare should be free to all." Or, less often, "Housing is a human right and should be free for everyone." Both of these sound wonderful. Both are impossible. Think about healthcare. Even if all doctors agreed to work for free, there would still be a cost. A doctor who devotes their time to treating patients is unable to use their time doing something else. This is a cost, and seeing as skilled physicians could definitely be employed usefully in a variety of ways, it is a significant cost. Additionally, providing medical care requires the use of many resources. Buildings, machinery, materials, medicines, and on and on. These resources, when used to provide medical care, cannot be used for something else. Even if some generous individual or organization were to donate all of these materials, there would still be a cost incurred by not using them for another purpose.
I understand the urge to believe in free. I would love for everyone to receive free healthcare. And housing. And food. And many other things. However, we live in a world of scarcity, and free is not possible. Believing in free denies that there are costs. Just because the drivers don't pay at the charging station doesn't mean that someone, or many people, aren't paying in other ways.
First Cross-Country Tesla Trip Takes Less Than A Week, Costs $0
First Cross-Country Tesla Trip Takes Less Than A Week, Costs $0 [well $0 for the drivers at least]
That bit in the brackets is so important because it highlights the common belief that we can have/use things at no cost. The Wired article says that the father and daughter used Tesla's charging stations (which must not charge a fee for usage). The drivers, then, did not incur any monetary costs for charging their vehicle. The usage of the charging stations most certainly incurred a cost, though. The charging station is made of a number of materials. Labor and equipment were required for construction and installation. Each charge requires electricity. There is no way to harness and conduct electricity without using resources. The point is that a driver may not have to pay when they charge their car, but this does not mean that charging a car is free of cost.
My guess is that many people would not think to add "well $0 for the drivers at least" in their head as they read the title. The reason I feel safe making this guess is that I often hear statements along the lines of "Healthcare should be free to all." Or, less often, "Housing is a human right and should be free for everyone." Both of these sound wonderful. Both are impossible. Think about healthcare. Even if all doctors agreed to work for free, there would still be a cost. A doctor who devotes their time to treating patients is unable to use their time doing something else. This is a cost, and seeing as skilled physicians could definitely be employed usefully in a variety of ways, it is a significant cost. Additionally, providing medical care requires the use of many resources. Buildings, machinery, materials, medicines, and on and on. These resources, when used to provide medical care, cannot be used for something else. Even if some generous individual or organization were to donate all of these materials, there would still be a cost incurred by not using them for another purpose.
I understand the urge to believe in free. I would love for everyone to receive free healthcare. And housing. And food. And many other things. However, we live in a world of scarcity, and free is not possible. Believing in free denies that there are costs. Just because the drivers don't pay at the charging station doesn't mean that someone, or many people, aren't paying in other ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment